Liberty is the opposite of tyranny!

Comments Off on A wall could not be built along the southern border because of flooding along the Rio Grande. Really?

People have argued that a wall could not be built along the southern border because of flooding along the Rio Grande (i.e. the logistics were non-existent).
The following is a three-part article I put together to debunk the Luddites beliefs.

1) The Chinese built a 13,000 mile plus wall beginning 2200 BC!
However, the part you see in pictures was built in 1600 AD.
Now remember, they had to deal with creeks, streams, and rivers!

2) The military has a rapid barrier wall system that is stack-able and all you need is a front-end loader. It protects soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is used for floods too (like it was during Katrina)!

3) Finally, there is a part of “the wall” (a fence really) that goes out into the Pacific ocean in San Diego that will last from 20 to 30 years. If we can extend the barricade out into the Pacific ocean, then how hard is it to fashion one on land?

Here is the bottom line: “The fencing is just another tool that we have,” said Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Michael Jimenez, referring to its design. “It helps to slow down the entry of these people to give our agents a chance to make an arrest. Because a fence alone isn’t going to stop people from coming in.”…but it will slow them down… just long enough for the Boarder Patrol to make an arrest!

BloggingForLiberty.com

Comments Off on So I read Trump’s op-ed about the primary in Colorado.

Trump’s blunder in Colorado may have been a stroke of genius!

Reading his op-ed sure gives me the impression that he is trying to make lemonade out of lemons. Trump is very skillful, I might even say genius, at generating and then using his supporters’ emotions to overcome their logic.

Colorado changed their system from a binding straw poll to a caucus system way back in August (that is over 8 months or 2/3 of a year before the delegates were chosen). Trump left this important information out of his op-ed. If this snuck up on Trump and his team, then he obviously doesn’t pick “the best people” to help him and he may not be ready to be El Presidente.

Colorado’s delegates were chosen by the 65,000 registered Republicans in a republican (representative) democracy. Each Republican from their neighborhood precinctcaucus voted for a district captain and a number of precinct delegatesproportionate to the number of Republicans in that district (precinct). There wereno crossovers from the Demowitz like South Carolina. I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.

Next, the district (precinct)captain and the district(precinct) delegates selected from each precinct attended their county’s caucus or A.K.A. county assembly.

I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.

At the county assembly the precinct delegates voted to select each countydelegate to go to a congressional assembly and state assembly.

Delegates to the Republican National Convention were then elected from both of those assemblies.

I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.

If you wanted to be a delegate to the national convention, you had to fill out a form and email it to a state Republican official, noting whether you would be pledged to a particular presidential candidate or not.

I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.

In the lead-up to those assemblies, each delegate received communications about logistics. Since all campaigns had access to delegate emails, each delegate received communications from all the campaigns seeking their vote.

I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.

According to the national assemblydelegates, the Cruz campaign was very organized with an easy-to-navigate interface that allowed delegates to quickly see who was on the Cruz slate for each assembly. The Trump campaign wasn’t so well organized, and they issued error-filled ballots that caused problems for the Trump supporters. I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.

Most interesting of all is the fact that BEFORE the state-wide delegates voted, the all the Republican candidates were scheduled to meet with the delegates. Trump arranged for local security, but then cancelled his appearance at the last minute.

I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.

Being snubbed by the Donald left many of the Colorado delegates feeling like they were unimportant to Trump.

Why would he do that, and what could be more pressing? Did his team drop the ball? No one but Trump can say for sure, however, the most logical hypothesis is that his internal polling suggested he was going to lose big, and in order to snatch victory from defeat, he used the same device as he did in Iowa, that is blame Cruz as a cheater. It worked before, and when you have a majority of low-information voters and seemingly unlimited press coverage to spread your spin, then why not?

I am sure this post, since it is not a pitch to emotion, is not going to sway emotion, but as Saint John said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

I just hope there is still enough time for you to be free before we get a gold Air Force One and buyer’s remorse.

BloggingForLiberty.com

Comments Off on The presidential primary system is unfair to Trump (but in his favor)!

The presidential primary system is unfair to Trump?

I hear Trumpsters, especially the Trumpster himself, lamenting about how the people of Colorado were cheated (but what they really mean, whether they admit it on not, is that Trump didn’t win there so it is unfair).

Trumpsters argue that the Republican presidential primary delegates should be given proportionally to the percentage of votes the candidate gets!

The people of Colorado should stand up and demand it!

I find it ironic that so-called Republicans (who derived their name exactly because we have a republican-style government where We the people elect representatives to make decisions for us about governmental function) want the presidential primary delegates to be awarded proportionally to the percentage of votes a candidate gets!

They need to be careful what they wish for.

For example:

South Carolina: Trump 32.4% of the vote & 100% of the delegates.Florida:Trump 45.7% of the vote & 100% of the delegates.

Arizona:Trump 45.9% of the vote & 100% of the delegates.

Illinois:Trump 38.8% of the vote & 78.3% of the delegates.

Missouri:Trump 40.8% of the vote & 71.2% of the delegates.

Alabama:Trump 43.4% of the vote & 72% of the delegates.

Northern Mariana Islands:Trump 72.8% of the vote & 100% of the delegates.

Tennessee:Trump 38.9% of the vote & 56.9% of the delegates.

Georgia:Trump 38.8% of the vote & 56.6% of the delegates.

Vermont:Trump 32.7% of the vote & 50% of the delegates.

Hawaii:Trump 42.4% of the vote & 57.9% of the delegates.

Mississippi:Trump 47.3% of the vote & 62.5% of the delegates.

New Hampshire:Trump 35.2% of the vote & 47.8% of the delegates.

U.S. VirginIslands: Trump 6.4% of the vote & 16.7% of the delegates.

Idaho:Trump 28.1% of the vote & 37.5% of the delegates.

Arkansas:Trump 32.8% of the vote & 40% of the delegates.

Maine:Trump 32.6% of the vote & 39.1% of the delegates.

Michigan:Trump 36.5% of the vote & 42.4% of the delegates.

Alaska:Trump 33.6% of the vote & 39.3% of the delegates.

Texas:Trump 26.7% of the vote & 31% of the delegates.

Massachusetts: Trump 49.3% of the vote & 52.4% of the delegates.

Oklahoma:Trump 28.3% of the vote & 30.2% of the delegates.

Kentucky:Trump 35.9% of the vote & 37% of the delegates.

Nevada:Trump 45.7% of the vote & 46.7% of the delegates.

North Carolina:Trump 40.2% of the vote & 40.3% of the delegates.

Virginia:Trump 34.7% of the vote & 34.7% of the delegates.

Kansas:Trump 23.4% of the vote & 22.5% of the delegates.

Iowa:Trump 24.3% of the vote & 23.3% of the delegates.

Louisiana:Trump 41.4% of the vote & 39.1% of the delegates.

Puerto Rico: Trump 13.1% of the vote & 0% of the delegates.

Washington DC:Trump 13.8% of the vote & 0% of the delegates.

Utah:Trump 14% of the vote & 0% of the delegates.

Wisconsin: Trump 35.1% of the vote & 14.3% of the delegates.

Ohio:Trump 35.6% of the vote & 0% of the delegates.

New York: Trump 60% of the vote & 95% of the delegates.

Do the Trumpsters know that more people voted for Cruz in Wisconsin than voted for Trump in New York, yet Trump was awarded 55 more delegates for his New York win than Cruz for his Wisconsin win?

In fact, in one New York district, Trump gleaned only 642 total votes yet was awarded 3 delegates!

So Trump has won a higher share of delegates than votes in unfair system!

BloggingForLiberty.com

Comments Off on The Ideology of Handouts (Another fantastic article from TheFreeManOnline.org)

The Ideology of Handouts

This another fantastic article from TheFreeManOnline.org that we thought you should see! It has been edited by BloggingForFreedom.com, but it retains its brilliance!

The Statist premise is that poverty is a purely economic problem: the needy simply lack the material resources to lead productive, happy lives (to be accomplished by taking money from the tax payer and giving it to the tax receiver or so-called needy), and anyone who opposes this redistribution is selfish and insensitive. Supply these resources, the theory runs, and you will have solved the problem of poverty.

The overall effect of handouts has been to “train” participants in irresponsibility: they learn that the world (statists) will keep rewarding them even when they don’t live up to their obligations.To put it another way, handouts that are not tied to an appropriate behavior end up reinforcing bad behavior.

This simple economic theory of poverty led to a single underlying principle for welfare programs (redistribution). Since, according to the Bleeding Hearts, the needy just lacked goods and services to become productive members of the community, it followed that all you had to do was give them these things (redistribute wealth from the makers to the takers). You didn’t have to see that they stopped engaging in the behavior that plunged them into neediness. You didn’t have to ask them to apply themselves, or to work, or to save, or to stop using drugs, or to stop having babies they couldn’t support, or to make any other kind of effort to improve themselves. In other words, the welfare programs that the war-on-poverty activists designed embodied something-for-nothing giving, or what we usually call “handouts.” In other words, the Bleeding Hearts reward (reinforced) bad behavior.

The Healthy Way to Give

Charity leaders of the nineteenth century had lived with the poor and had analyzed the effects of different kinds of aid. They discovered that almsgiving (handouts)—that is, something for nothing—actually hurt the poor.

First, it weakened them by undermining their motivation to improve themselves.If you kept giving a man food when he was hungry, you undermined his incentive to look for a way to feed himself.

Second, handouts encouraged self-destructive vices by softening the natural penalties for irresponsible and socially harmful behavior. If you gave a man coal who had wasted his money on drink, you encouraged him to drink away next month’s coal money, too.

Finally, the nineteenth-century experts argued, handouts were self-defeating. People became dependent on them, and new recipients were attracted to them.So this type of aid could never reduce the size of the needy population. With handouts, the more you gave, the more you had to give.

The correct way to help the needy, they said, was to expect something of recipients in return for what was given them. Instead of giving poor people what they needed, the charity leaders organized programs that enabled the needy to supply their own wants. They weren’t given money, but were counseled to find employment; they weren’t given apartments, but were rented, at cost, healthy dwellings managed by charities; they weren’t given food, but learned to grow their own food at garden clubs developed for that purpose. The great English charity leader Octavia Hill, who worked all her life among the poor, summed up the nineteenth-century social workers’ position on handouts: “I proclaim that I myself have no belief whatever in the poor being one atom richer or better for the alms (handouts) that reach them, that they are very distinctly worse, and that I give literally no such alms (handouts) myself.”

I recently asked my friend’s daughter what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats (socialists), were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?’ She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.’ Her parents beamed with approval.

“Wow…what a worthy goal,” I told her. “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?” “Welcome to the Tea Party.”

While the state of neediness we call poverty does involve a lack of material resources, it also involves a mass of psychological and moral problems, including weak motivation, lack of trust in others, ignorance, irresponsibility, self-destructiveness, short-sightedness, alcoholism, drug addiction, promiscuity, violence, and most important of all risk factors-intelligence (or the lack thereof). To say that all these behavioral and psychological problems can be “abolished” is a denial of the common-sense facts.

“It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times than to believe a fact that no one has heard before”

Edited by BloggingForLiberty.com

Comments Off on Why the War on Poverty Failed (edited by BloggingForFreedom.com)

Why the War on Poverty (really freedom) Failed

This is a brilliant article, and BloggingForLiberty did not write it, but wanted to pass it on!

Perhaps the best way to look at the statement is to take a close look at the book that inspired the war on poverty, Michael Harrington’s The Other America, published in 1962. (Harrington died in 1989.) Possibly the most influential policy book in American history, The Other America was cited again and again by the politicians, activists, and administrators who set up welfare programs in the 1960s. In it you will find the fallacies that sent the reformers (and the people who just needed an excuse to steal) down dark and tangled paths into today’s social tragedies.

Harrington’s premise was that poverty is a purely economic problem: the needy simply lack the material resources to lead productive, happy lives. Supply these resources, the theory runs, and you will have solved the problem of poverty. This theme was repeated up and down the welfare establishment as simple moral imperatives, and anyone who opposed them was seen as selfish and insensitive. Sargent Shriver, the administration’s leading anti-poverty warrior, told Congress that the nation had “both the resources and the know-how to eliminate grinding poverty in the United States.” These ignoramuses said that curing poverty was simple algebra: add government’s x dollars to the poor’s y dollars and the result would be the end to poverty.curing poverty was simple algebra: add government’s xdollars to the poor’s y dollars and the result would be the end to poverty. President Lyndon Johnson echoed the claim. “For the first time in our history,” he declared, “it is possible to conquer poverty,” (what a moron).

The simple economic theory of poverty led to a single underlying principle for welfare programs. Since the needy just lacked goods and services to become productive members of the community, it followed that all you had to do was give them these things. You didn’t have to see that they stopped engaging in the behavior that plunged them into neediness. You didn’t have to ask them to apply themselves, or to work, or to save, or to stop using drugs, or to stop having babies they couldn’t support, or to make any other kind of effort to improve themselves. In other words, the welfare programs the war-on-poverty activists designed embodied something-for-nothing giving, or what we usually call “handouts.”

Poverty does involve a lack of material resources,and it also involves a mass of psychological and moral problems, including weak motivation, lack of trust in others, ignorance, irresponsibility, self-destructiveness, short-sightedness, alcoholism, drug addiction, promiscuity, and violence, but far and away intelligence (or the lack there of) is THE number one risk factor.

THEY ARGUE THAT LEAKING PLAME’S NAME WAS HIGH CRIME, BUT THAT LEAKING REAL NATIONAL SECURITY SECRETS – LIKE NSA TECHNIQUES, THE SWIFT SURVEILLANCE, AND HOW WE GOT OSAMA – ARE PART OF “THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW”.

THEY ARGUE THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES TO PROTECT SOME ANIMAL SPECIES – LIKE THE SPOTTED OWL, BUT THAT ABORTION OF HUMAN BABIES IS FINE.

THEY ARGUE THAT BUSH’S DEFICITS WERE TOO BIG AND BAD, BUT THEY ARGUE THAT OBAMA’S – WHICH ARE TWICE AS BIG – ARE GOOD, AND WOULD BE BETTER IF THEY WERE BIGGER.

THEY ARGUE THAT RAISING TAXES ON BUSINESSES WON’T RETARD BUSINESSES FROM INVESTING OR GROWING, BUT THAT RAISING TAXES ON CIGARETTES AND SUGARY DRINKS WILL RETARD THE CONSUMPTION OF CIGARETTES AND SUGARY DRINKS.

Comments Off on The four conservative voices (need to be singing the same tune)!

In the 1980 Republican Party presidential primaries, Bush beat Reagan in the Iowa straw poll in January. Reagan responded by sweeping the South. Although he lost a few more primaries and even came in third in one state he had the contest won early, and went into the convention with almost all the delegates.

If they don’t pool their efforts Trump is going to win.

BloggingForLiberty.com

If you watched the New Hampshire debates, then you saw the Obama-hugging Chris Christie tear into Marco Rubio for pointing out that Obama is purposely destroying the United States. Christie says Obama is not purposeful, just incompetent. Really?

Christie is a very gifted orator and statist, like Obama, but unlike Obama Christie plays for the Republican team. Christie’s main difference with Obama is that instead of Obama being king, Christie wants to be the sovereign.

What Senator Rubio did not say, but certainly implied, is that Obama’s status as a first-term senator has not prevented him from achieving what he set out to achieve (the first steps in the destruction of the free-market system in the U.S. and abdication of the U.S. as a dominant player in the world). It is not hard to realize what Obama has done he has done on purpose.

Obama said in October of 2008, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” What do you think Obama meant?

Obama’s actions have been deliberate and have caused considerable damage to our nation. Domestically, Obama has used regulation, taxation and executive order to botch health care, energy, education, economics and employment. Internationally, he has wrought destabilization, death and destruction to the world, and his victims have included Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, and Europe (the list goes on).

In the debate, Rubio , also a first-term senator, argued that he could be equally effective, but in the opposite way. Rubio was absolutely correct. There is no doubt that he could be the savior our republic needs, and honestly pointing out what the Obamanation has done is sin qua non.

In contrast to Christie’s criticisms, Donald Trump dismisses Obama as a rank incompetent because he hasn’t enriched himself sufficiently. Trump doesn’t really have a problem with the Progressive plan “to fundamentally change the United States,” foreign policy notwithstanding. Trump believes that Obama’s real problem has been that he could have amassed much more money if he had more experience at using the government to enrich himself (a projection of the Donald’s avarice and modus vivendi).

I have no doubt that Trump is highly proficient at gaming the system, and if he were the Prez, then he would have made out like a king, but is that what we really want in a president?

Only Cruz, Fiorina, and Rubio, are willing to point out that what Obama meant by “change” was to “fundamentally transform” the United States from a constitutional republic into a socialist democracy.

All the other remaining candidates refuse to point out that Obama was deliberate in his efforts to destroy our free-market system.

These other candidates, if they were to acknowledge Obama’s real purpose, would be admitting that they are unprincipled and just go along to get along (or worse).

However, with the exception of Cruz and maybe Ben Carson, all the candidates (including Fiorina) have curried favor or have outright worked with Obama or other statists, unwittingly or not, to help with our nation’s nefarious transformation. So that leaves only two candidates from which to choose.

In Senator Rubio’s and Fiorina’s defense, it needs to be stated that they both recognize, understand, and are willing to say EXACTLY what is going on with the Obamanation, and for this they should be applauded!

However, Marco’s association with the Gang-of-Eight’s attempt to codify amnesty, or more precisely the plan to import millions of new Democratic voters, indicates he goes along with what would be the death knell for our constitutionally limited government. That is a deal breaker for me!

Still, if you are asking if he should be the Prez? The logical answer is; we could do much worse than Marco (but why take the chance? ).

It is well known that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior; so, if we want to return our nation to a constitutional republic, then that leaves Ted Cruz.

If you believe in our Constitution , then he is by far THE best choice!

Ben is second, Carly if third, and that leaves Marco as a close forth. The rest are somewhere on the spectrum between Bush and Obama (in other words 8 trillion to 20 trillion)…

BloggingForLiberty.com

Comments Off on The fundamental change (or after your property is redistributed that is all you will have left).

Obama’s status as a first-term senator has not prevented him from achieving what he set out to achieve (the first steps in the destruction of the the free-market system in the U.S. and the position of the U.S. as a dominant player in the world).

Like it or not, Obama’s goal is the destruction of the free-market, and Obama, like all the statists, wants government to replace the sovereignty of the people. Don’t believe me? The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and ex-President Bill Clinton, statists both, have independently argued that the 2009 stimulus package was too small!

The truth is that more than 2.5 trillion of fiscal stimulus has been redistributed since 2009. Esoteric as it may be, it should be pointed out that the $800 billion (really $819 billion) stimulus package was only the start of the Obamanation’s wealth redistribution. There are at least fifteen pieces of legislation passed since 2008, including the 2009 stimulus bill, unemployment insurance extensions and the payroll tax cuts to name a few.

Federal government spending as a share of GDP rose to a high of 27.3% in 2009! This GDP increase was virtually all stimulus spending, including the TARP and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts, “cash for clunkers,” additional mortgage relief subsidies and, of course, President Obama’s $819 billion stimulus plan.

If you do not think that the Obamanation is destroying the economy of the U.S.A. methodically and systematically with the plan to rebuild it in the socialist/communist model, then you need to examine the Cloward and Piven strategy.

Ted, Marco, (and perhaps Carly), recognize and understand EXACTLY what is going on with the Obamanation, and for this they should be applauded!

You should be very weary of anyone who wants your vote and does not point this out.

BloggingForLiberty.com

In early September of 2008, before the presidential election of the Obamanation, and before the economy crashed into the abyss, Rubio said, “Marx would be pleased” by Obama’s proposals. He was right on!

However, he was also for Mike Huckabee in 2008 for the GOP presidential nomination.

Well, two out of three ain’t bad! Unfortunately, there is more.

Marco Rubio is not the son of Cuban exiles as he used to say when he fist began running for public office. In fact, up until 2011, Marco Rubio described his parents as exiles from Fidel Castro’s communist regime in Cuba.

The problem is his parents came to the U.S. in 1956, before the Cuban revolution. When confronted with these facts Rubio insisted he hadn’t known his family’s actual history. Really?

Marco was one of the first Republicans to criticize Arizona’s SB1070, and he said it would “unreasonably single out people who are here legally.”

I distinctly remember hearing him on the radio calling the AZ bill “racist” but I cannot substantiate it now, so let’s just say he was against it. Then, just a week later, after some minor changes were made to the law, Rubio said he would have voted for it. I am not buying the flip.

Like most Cuban-American Floridians, Rubio was raised Catholic but after moving with his family to Las Vegas in 1979, he converted to Mormonism. Rubio presently claims he returned to the Catholic church as a teen, after his family’s return to Florida. But since he has attained senator status, he’s also been a regular at a non-denominational megachurch. Seems a little suspicious to me, but who am I to judge.

As speaker of the Florida Legislature, Rubio helped pass a landmark bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions, voiced caution about drilling off the state’s coast, and argued that climate change was real. But as soon as he embarked on the US Senate race, his love for tree-huggers faded.

I guess if he thought it would win votes, then Marco would believe that the Bermuda triangle has within it a time hole vortex…